Fact versus fantasy: If you chest-beat, at least get it right

[ArmouredCarriers]

 

I understand this game is an arcade "interpretation".

And this flavour is only accentuated by the predominance of so many "paper" ships being introduced.

 

But if you're going to argue a point of historical comparison: Get your facts straight.

 

Especially in threads such as this: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/46946-how-will-uk-ships-be-represented-will-they-suck-at-everything/

 

There is nothing wrong with national pride.

But don't expose your own insecurities through using fantasy to belittle others in order to make yourself look better.

 

I've reposted the below from another thread as I feel it has wider application.

 

I cannot believe people still wheel out fantasies from the Slade and Worth "essays" at the navweaps site to justify their chest-beating.

 

A simple fact check destroys their credibility utterly.

 

As cited above, it is a myth that a 20mm cannon from a Firefly "destroyed" HMS Formidable through a hangar fire. It was. 50 cal from a Corsair which burnt-out five aircraft... And Formidable was back in action off Sakishima Gunto two days later.

 

Facts. Get them right.

 

Find the original sources - such as the original damage control reports and eye-witness accounts.

There are plenty of these reports published online for the USN. There are a few around for the RN - such as for Hood and the armoured carriers.

 

Here are a couple of easy ones to find:

Dare to be different: Read the them, side by side.

Then use your own grey matter to form an arguable position: Don't cut-and-paste stuff from elsewhere, it's probably fantasy.

 

The USS Franklin report: http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-franklin-cv-13-war-damage-report-no-56.html

 

Read the original HMS Illustrious battle damage report here (it also has links to other battle damage reports, both US and UK): http://www.armouredcarriers.com/adm26783/2014/10/16/illustrious-january-10-damage-report-bomb-shell

 

Ignore the "spun" and "polished" accounts written in military academies to curry favour with star-spangled brass.

Apparently it's what you need to do to get an academic grant nowadays

 

Such as the biplane myth.

The only nation with front-line biplanes in 1940 and 41 was the United States, with the heroic little F3F "Flying Barrel".

In 1940 the RN had the Fulmar. The IJN had the first model of the Zero.

 

Again: Fact. Compare like time with like time.

Ignore the flag-wavers who try to compare Corsairs to Fulmars. The emergency-program Fulmar was withdrawn from front-line service before the first Corsair saw action.

There was a whole lot of war before 1942.

 

Find a rebuttal of Slade and Worth's ignorance here http://www.armouredcarriers.com/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays/2014/5/30/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays

You'll probably find many other oft-cited web authorities (including WikiPedia) are equally fragile when it comes to actual substance.

 

And if you're going to argue the point - at least try to cite your sources.

That way you demonstrate you may actually have some substance behind your opinion.

 

[TabbyHopkins]

I get what you are saying about fact checking, but I still feel like I'm missing something.

[Megrim3]

ok....very informative. what was the reason that you decided to post this? someone tick you off in some argument?

[ArmouredCarriers]

Apologies.

 

The cause was cumulative, so blaming this thread alone (and in particular the citing of the above essays in it) is probably not entirely fair.

 

It was the statement that a 20mm cannon "ruined" HMS Formidable.

Utter fantasy. Yet often cited.

 

But it was a trigger point

 

http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/46946-how-will-uk-ships-be-represented-will-they-suck-at-everything/

 

 

[Cragger]

Comparing the events of the USS Franklin to the HMS Illustrious is... well frankly padding an argument in your favor (And I don't even know where this argument began). Instead of picking a similar attack in a similar situation you reached for the one with the most 'shock and awe' but not the same scenario. Franklin was undergoing preparations to launch an attack when she was hit and what did her in more then anything else was the Tiny Tim rockets who's rocket motors ignited, which being self oxidizing could not be extinguished. Illustrious was not carrying any such ordinance.

[JAKERTANKING]

i dont know why this thread was needed, but im not going to berate you for taking the time to write such a nice paper. A+

[Dareios]

+1. good rebuttal.

 

shall we bring up that the corsairs, designed for carriers, were effective when launched from nice stable islands, but not so able to land on carriers.

 

 

[Sirus_Patton]

+1. good rebuttal.

 

shall we bring up that the corsairs, designed for carriers, were effective when launched from nice stable islands, but not so able to land on carriers.

 

 

 

Actually it's only early Corsair models that had serious carrier difficulty.  The original design only had a radiator on one wing, and the opposing wing would stall out the moment the aircraft reached landing speeds for a carrier making it exceptionally difficult to land.  This was fixed rather quickly by simply placing a radiator in the root of both wings.

[ArmouredCarriers]

The RN, struggling to meet its aircraft needs due to prioritisation of the RAF, used the early Corsair (Mk 1) anyway. It got around its landing problems with the technique used for Seafires - curved landing approaches. There were not enough Hellcats available due to USN demand, therefore the need to build the Seafire III as both a fallback option and to fill the low hangars of Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable. But the Corsair Avenger combination proved effective off Sakishima / Okinawa and Japan. Prioritisation of RAF during the Battle of Britain resulted in the FAA having the F4F operational about three months before the USN.

 

[Brofisticus]

But it was a trigger point

 

 

Relax man, its all good. Don't let the revisionist patriots get under your skin. Good little write up though, I've never seen a damage report for a ship before. 

[Bobbin]

Just to make sure I'm comprehending what I'm reading, you're saying that navyweapons website is similar to that annoying book about Shermans everyone likes to cite (Death Traps, or something similar?) that Chieftain likes to cite as an example of how bad information can spread and become popular knowledge, even though incorrect?

[SinqueScheiDeMona]

This basically a don't trust a single article hosted on navweaps vs my site choice that is all about armored carriers thread. 

 

Be brave go onto the navweaps board and post your query there and see what guys who have been talking about naval engagements for 30+ years think of the two philosophies.  

[Barake]

One of the lessons of reading history books, is know the source.  Sometimes you have to go to multiple sources to get a better picture.  I was amused with the thread with all the criticism for the British carrier.  Funny thing, the US was thinking it needed to build carriers like the Brits (armored flight decks) and the Brits were thinking they needed to build big carriers like the Essex.  Who is right? 

 

The thread in question could only have been written to start a fight on the forums.  This thread on the other hand is a good one!

[brdhntr]

The RN, struggling to meet its aircraft needs due to prioritisation of the RAF, used the early Corsair (Mk 1) anyway. It got around its landing problems with the technique used for Seafires - curved landing approaches. There were not enough Hellcats available due to USN demand, therefore the need to build the Seafire III as both a fallback option and to fill the low hangars of Indomitable, Implacable and Indefatigable. But the Corsair Avenger combination proved effective off Sakishima / Okinawa and Japan. Prioritisation of RAF during the Battle of Britain resulted in the FAA having the F4F operational about three months before the USN.

 

 

I believe the RN, also, modified the cockpit to improve visibility during the landing approach, and the US implemented the change in their planes due to it's success.  I can't remember the name they had for the cockpit, and I was up close and personal with one Saturday afternoon in the form of an FG version of the Corsair.  

[Hans_Von_Lohman]

 

Actually it's only early Corsair models that had serious carrier difficulty.  The original design only had a radiator on one wing, and the opposing wing would stall out the moment the aircraft reached landing speeds for a carrier making it exceptionally difficult to land.  This was fixed rather quickly by simply placing a radiator in the root of both wings.

 

This is the first time I've ever heard of this imbalance issue, and even then I don't think it is actually true.  The first model of production Corsairs have radiators in both wings.

 

No, the info I've always heard about the troubles with the Corsair from carriers was actually multiple small problems that add up to making it difficult to land.

 

1.  Huge propeller, huge torque.  With an 18 foot prop on the Corsair compared to a 13 foot prop on the Hellcat torque is a bigger issue.  If you throttle up too fast you roll the plane, which is what you do when you abort a landing, yet don't have a lot of control with ailerons.  This even affected landing and takeoffs from shore airfields.  Corsair pilots were taught to throttle up to 50% until they reached a certain airspeed, and only then go full throttle to avoid the big torque problem.

 

2.  Limited visibility on landing.  The pilot of the Corsair sits halfway back from the nose to the tail.  He cannot see over the nose on landing.  This was "solved" by having Corsairs make a weird landing approach to carriers by coming in on a curving approach from the port side, while normal planes would also come in from the port side, but straighten out into a shallow dive, slowly straight at the rear of of the carrier.  Corsairs had to do it much closer, with less room for error to minimize how long they flew blind.  The engine of a Hellcat is mounted with a slight downward angle, not to mention putting the pilot closer to the nose and has better forward field of view.

 

3.  Bounces on landing.  Corsairs didn't do as well when actually touching down and tended to bounce more, skipping over arresting wires and going into the barricade.

 

However, the speed of the Corsair was too good to pass up, so Corsairs were put on carriers anyway because Kamikaze attacks were way too serious to pass up having a faster interception further out to sea.

[Tricericon]

One of the lessons of reading history books, is know the source.  Sometimes you have to go to multiple sources to get a better picture.  I was amused with the thread with all the criticism for the British carrier.  Funny thing, the US was thinking it needed to build carriers like the Brits (armored flight decks) and the Brits were thinking they needed to build big carriers like the Essex.  Who is right? 

 

The thread in question could only have been written to start a fight on the forums.  This thread on the other hand is a good one!

 

Midway added some flight deck armor (although kind of like Tiger/Kongo I don't think there are grounds to infer a direct connection) but did not go to a British style flight deck = strength deck model.

[Tricericon]

I understand this game is an arcade "interpretation".

And this flavour is only accentuated by the predominance of so many "paper" ships being introduced.

 

But if you're going to argue a point of historical comparison: Get your facts straight.

 

Especially in threads such as this: http://forum.worldofwarships.com/index.php?/topic/46946-how-will-uk-ships-be-represented-will-they-suck-at-everything/

 

There is nothing wrong with national pride.

But don't expose your own insecurities through using fantasy to belittle others in order to make yourself look better.

 

I've reposted the below from another thread as I feel it has wider application.

 

I cannot believe people still wheel out fantasies from the Slade and Worth "essays" at the navweaps site to justify their chest-beating.

 

A simple fact check destroys their credibility utterly.

 

As cited above, it is a myth that a 20mm cannon from a Firefly "destroyed" HMS Formidable through a hangar fire. It was. 50 cal from a Corsair which burnt-out five aircraft... And Formidable was back in action off Sakishima Gunto two days later.

 

Facts. Get them right.

 

Find the original sources - such as the original damage control reports and eye-witness accounts.

There are plenty of these reports published online for the USN. There are a few around for the RN - such as for Hood and the armoured carriers.

 

Here are a couple of easy ones to find:

Dare to be different: Read the them, side by side.

Then use your own grey matter to form an arguable position: Don't cut-and-paste stuff from elsewhere, it's probably fantasy.

 

The USS Franklin report: http://www.history.navy.mil/research/library/online-reading-room/title-list-alphabetically/w/war-damage-reports/uss-franklin-cv-13-war-damage-report-no-56.html

 

Read the original HMS Illustrious battle damage report here (it also has links to other battle damage reports, both US and UK): http://www.armouredcarriers.com/adm26783/2014/10/16/illustrious-january-10-damage-report-bomb-shell

 

Ignore the "spun" and "polished" accounts written in military academies to curry favour with star-spangled brass.

Apparently it's what you need to do to get an academic grant nowadays

 

Such as the biplane myth.

The only nation with front-line biplanes in 1940 and 41 was the United States, with the heroic little F3F "Flying Barrel".

In 1940 the RN had the Fulmar. The IJN had the first model of the Zero.

 

Again: Fact. Compare like time with like time.

Ignore the flag-wavers who try to compare Corsairs to Fulmars. The emergency-program Fulmar was withdrawn from front-line service before the first Corsair saw action.

There was a whole lot of war before 1942.

 

Find a rebuttal of Slade and Worth's ignorance here http://www.armouredcarriers.com/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays/2014/5/30/debunking-slade-and-worths-armoured-carrier-essays

You'll probably find many other oft-cited web authorities (including WikiPedia) are equally fragile when it comes to actual substance.

 

And if you're going to argue the point - at least try to cite your sources.

That way you demonstrate you may actually have some substance behind your opinion.

 

That Banzai character is just trolling to get a rise. I think he gets a 10/10 if he provoked this much drama.

[Mourneblade]

 

This is the first time I've ever heard of this imbalance issue, and even then I don't think it is actually true.  The first model of production Corsairs have radiators in both wings.

 

No, the info I've always heard about the troubles with the Corsair from carriers was actually multiple small problems that add up to making it difficult to land.

 

1.  Huge propeller, huge torque.  With an 18 foot prop on the Corsair compared to a 13 foot prop on the Hellcat torque is a bigger issue.  If you throttle up too fast you roll the plane, which is what you do when you abort a landing, yet don't have a lot of control with ailerons.  This even affected landing and takeoffs from shore airfields.  Corsair pilots were taught to throttle up to 50% until they reached a certain airspeed, and only then go full throttle to avoid the big torque problem.

 

2.  Limited visibility on landing.  The pilot of the Corsair sits halfway back from the nose to the tail.  He cannot see over the nose on landing.  This was "solved" by having Corsairs make a weird landing approach to carriers by coming in on a curving approach from the port side, while normal planes would also come in from the port side, but straighten out into a shallow dive, slowly straight at the rear of of the carrier.  Corsairs had to do it much closer, with less room for error to minimize how long they flew blind.  The engine of a Hellcat is mounted with a slight downward angle, not to mention putting the pilot closer to the nose and has better forward field of view.

 

3.  Bounces on landing.  Corsairs didn't do as well when actually touching down and tended to bounce more, skipping over arresting wires and going into the barricade.

 

However, the speed of the Corsair was too good to pass up, so Corsairs were put on carriers anyway because Kamikaze attacks were way too serious to pass up having a faster interception further out to sea.

 

They were definitely Ensign killers for sure...but the speed and handling in the sky was what mattered and that same torque that could kill a novice trying to land is what helped the Corsair out turn the Zero and out perform it except in low speeds... It was the Best USMC Fighter of the War....

[Cowcharge]

Yeah, doing a snap roll ten feet off the deck isn't recommended.

 

The Hellcat won the Pacific war, though.

[Mourneblade]

Yeah, doing a snap roll ten feet off the deck isn't recommended.

 

The Hellcat won the Pacific war, though.

 

No doubt 19-1 kill ratio and over 5k planes destroyed.... although the Corsair had over 2k kills with an 11-1 ratio so it was certainly no slouch

[Cowcharge]

My dad in his Hellcat along with a Corsair dove on some Japanese planes from 26,000 feet. They were going so fast they barely had time to fire three rounds as they went by. When they pulled out, my dad leveled off at about 1500 feet. The Corsair's wings came off.

[ButtonsPushed]

Great post! +1

 

I found that website with the damage reports to be fascinating. I spend a few hours reading some of them. Good stuff!

[crzyhawk]

Such as the biplane myth.

The only nation with front-line biplanes in 1940 and 41 was the United States, with the heroic little F3F "Flying Barrel".

 

Hm, I was under the impression that Swordfish were front line aircraft in the RN in 1941 when they were sent to attack the Bismarck.  Or Taranto in 1940.  They are bi-planes, yes?  Perhaps you meant fighters and not aircraft.  Or,  you need to do some fact checking of your own.

 

Regardless, there are far too many half-baked opinions based on too much history channel.  There's a lot of real history out there, my hope is that things like this game become a gateway drug for people to move past watching Dogfights: Battle of Denmark Strait and Battle 360, USS Enterprise on the History channel.  Get interested and correct those mis-inturpretations that they picked up watching secret nazi super weapons.

 

The British had a first class navy, I put them second in the world behind....the IJN in 1940-41.  Pound for pound, I think the IJN was ahead of everyone.  The only thing we really did better than the Brits in 1941 imo, was carrier warfare.  The Brits were a bit behind there, but in a gun battle?  I wouldn't want to be on the USN end of that early on.  ASW?  Professionals.

 

The USN is a third place at best, and I am a USN fan.  Without British experience and ideas that they passed on to us, things would have been a lot different.  A look at our battles in 1942 tells the truth:  Our wins were generally flukes/luck and our defeats were serious butt-whippings.  When the Victorious deployed and served with Saratoga in 1943, the ideas passed over on air defense were far and away better than what we were doing.  Our vaunted radar fire control evolved from British research.  Our beloved, iconic P-51 Mustang was only made a legend when coupled with a British Merlin engine.  The US did not win the war.  The Allies did, and the British were every bit as vital as the Americans were.

 

What America did best in the war was learn.  We made a lot of mistakes early, and paid dearly for them, but we made good those lessons and rarely repeated the same mistakes.  By the end of the war, we were masters of carrier warfare...to the point the things we were not so good at were no longer relevant.

 

In short, don't listen to that troll.  The RN is likely the finest naval service to ever sail the seas.  It takes 3 years to build a ship.  It takes 300 to build a tradition.  I know I am eagerly looking forward to the RN ships in game, and believe that their crusiers (My favorite Brit cruiser is the Sheffield.  It seemed like when there was a fight, Sheffield managed to wander into it) are going to be that perfect balance between tough USN gunships and glass-jawed IJN torpedo-hammers.  I wish they were in game now, or next in line.  They're far more significant and important than the Kriegsmarine ships imo.

[Hillslam]

...

 A look at our battles in 1942 tells the truth:  Our wins were generally flukes/luck and our defeats were serious butt-whippings.  ...

 

I agree with most of this post with the exception of this particular line which I feel is a gross oversimplication and overgeneralization of the USN strengths and weaknesses.

I beleive tactically we had alot of ground to catch up to both the IJN and especially the RN (and as you said no other navy in the world learned as fast as the USN bar none) - but strategically and more importantly, operational and logistical capabilities were the best in the world. Damage control, both doctrinally and in-practice, was possibly better than the RN and significantly better than the IJN. Engineering, while having some early fits (ala early, underpowered Mustangs, etc) generally produced reliable, easily maintained designs that worked well in the field and in many cases produced equipment and ships that were the best in class.

 

However I loved your post and the OP's.

 

I too am REALLY looking forward to the RN (but I admit I can't wait to get my hands on Gneisenau or Spee.

[ArmouredCarriers]

The USN won its battles on merit. It was extremely well equipped and well led. I agree with many posters here - not only did it learn from the 1939-1941 actions, it took those lessons and ran with them.

The outcomes were clearly in advance.

 

Which is why it has no need to belittle others.

 

And yes: I was referring to fighter biplanes... Sorry: I failed to clarify.

 

I tend to think of the Swordfish as the original helicopter - a utility craft of high vulnerability which maintained its relevance through pure usefulness. Despite popular mythology, that is why it was called Stringbag: It could carry anything under any conditions...